Premier Pacific Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 389

Premier Pacific Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 389

The Court refused the further extension because it was not satisfied, as required by s 1322(6), that no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused to ABN Amro. ABN Amro had succeeded before Gummow J, was prima facie entitled to the benefit of that judgment, had $40 million tied up in an account earning interest for Premier Pacific, could otherwise earn a higher return, and faced prejudice from the changed apparent value of the shares. Even apart from the statutory bar, the discretion would not have been exercised to grant the extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Motion Under S 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Law for Extension of Time / Interlocutory Motion Pending Appeal From Orders of Gummow J
Outcome
Motion for further extension dismissed, with temporary extension to 28 April 1995 and appeal expedited.
Legal Topics
['prospectus Listing Condition' 'repayment of Subscription Money' 'extension of Time Under S 1322(4)(d)' 'substantial Injustice Under S 1322(6)' 'expedition of Appeal']
['corporations Law' 'securities Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['prospectus Listing Condition' 'repayment of Subscription Money' 'extension of Time Under S 1322(4)(d)' 'substantial Injustice Under S 1322(6)' 'expedition of Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion Under S 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Law for Extension of Time / Interlocutory Motion Pending Appeal From Orders of Gummow J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time in which Premier Pacific was obliged to repay money received pursuant to its prospectus should be extended until three business days after determination of its appeal.' 'Whether the Court was satisfied under s 1322(6) that no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused to ABN Amro if an extension were granted.' 'Whether undertakings or conditions concerning interest and payment for shares would sufficiently address prejudice pending appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the further extension because it was not satisfied, as required by s 1322(6), that no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused to ABN Amro. ABN Amro had succeeded before Gummow J, was prima facie entitled to the benefit of that judgment, had $40 million tied up in an account earning interest for Premier Pacific, could otherwise earn a higher return, and faced prejudice from the changed apparent value of the shares. Even apart from the statutory bar, the discretion would not have been exercised to grant the extension.

Court Disposition

Motion for further extension dismissed, with temporary extension to 28 April 1995 and appeal expedited.

Orders

  • ["Premier Pacific's motion for an extension until three business days after determination of the appeal was dismissed, subject to the stated undertakings being considered." "Premier Pacific was ordered to pay ABN Amro's costs of the proceeding and the costs of Australian Stock Exchange Limited as a submitting...